Tough to say. Both were very patchy seasons with levels of brilliance.

2007 Federer was the beginning of the end...he still won 3 slams but he lost early at IW - Miami to Cañas which opened the floodgates at the Masters. However, his AO 2007 run was fucking BRILLIANT, and his backhand looked amazing as did that drubbing against Andy "the gap is closing" Roddick. Right after that, towards the beginning of the clay season, he split with Roche and his form fell. Up and down clay season capped off by his annual loss to Nadal at RG and a tight one at Wimbledon. The US hard court season was mediocre by his previously created standards and I remember in the 2007 final in Montréal against Novak he just COULD NOT convert those set points in the first and he lost. Djokovic had a ton of bp chances in that US Open final, but Fed managed to close it out because of his experience -- he wasn't playing that great though. He did finish the season on a high note at TMC.

Rafa, on the other hand, follows the opposite trajectory. After AO this year, everyone thought he was done for good with his loss to Murray, and then two matches that he should have won at IW and Miami he lost. At this point there was all the OMG RAFA WILL NEVER WIN ANOTHER SLAM hysteria, much like the current OMG RAFA WILL WIN 27 SLAMS hysteria. Of course he had an excellent clay season and that continued onto grass. Average North American hard court season for him...the losses that he had probably helped him peak at the US Open. However, we've yet to see how he will end the year.

In terms of overall form in their years, Federer and Rafa are about equal. Fed's middle of the year lacked while Rafa's beginning did. I'd say Federer's peak form in 2007 was better than Rafa's peak form in 2010. However, I think Rafa's 2010 results beat Federer's 2007 results.

This is such a terribly confined view. Anyone who watched Fed that '07 USO knows he was bloody brilliant, only hiccup was the finals first set.

Well I guess it is impossible to have an objective post as Dulltards are always trying to change the rules.

I dont really care about GOATing and I am more eager about next match to be played than piling stats.

I dont like Rafa to be honest, his mimics are bothering me.

When he won his first RG at something like 17, and then the following ones, I nevertheless thought his fans were right when saying "He is younger than Roger but at the end of their career he will have more titles".

Then years go by, massive training and too many competing week as well as a self destructive gamestyle have put him behind "at the same age" :

Federer 15 GS + 5 WTF at 28 when Nadal 14 GS + 0 WTF.

TBH Rafa has still a chance to reverse that trend but obviously with most of GS on clay which is a little bit less shining.

So Dulltards are now claiming about HtoH.
But sorry Santoro is not better than Safin or Kolya than Rafa even if leading HtoH.
It just means Rafa game is really suited to defeat Federer.

So what we have :

On one side a guy that manage to conquest title on all the surfaces from Clay (a few) to Fast Indoor Court.

On the other side a guy whose game is particularly excelling on Clay and wins randomly on other surfaces and hardly never indoor and whose game is suited to defeat Federer.

Excuse me but in my mind GOAT means flexible and adaptable and not specialist.

Another point is consistency with 303 weeks at World n°1 vs something like 150. Means around 3 years more. Sorry to translate.
Not sure this trend would be reversed, moreover with Nole around.

Please ask Dulltard not to keep on starting threads where they clame the 509 consecutive weeks Rafa spent into top 25 because it is paaaaaathetic

You're right about the passing shots, can't believe I forgot about them.

And I was largely joking about Federer being GOAT for that reason, but it's hard to get behind Nadal when he so rarely excites, and so often frustrates me (low-risk game, time between points etc).

OT: Why do you think Nalbandian is the most talented player of that decade?

Nalbandian has a bit less natural strokes than Safin, But when it comes to hability of improvisation he blowns him out of the water.

The most naturally talented players I've seen in the 2000's are 1) Nalbandian 2) Safin.

Nalbandian has the most natural raw talent of any tennis player since the 2000's

Now his hability to underperform was product of lack of focus, reduced mental strenght and lower athleticism (compared to other player of the same generation).

12-04-2014 03:10 PM

17-6-302

Re: Endless Federer-Nadal debates

Saying 'Baby' Nadal beat that generation of players is being disingenuous. He was a full grown GS Champion(multiple time) by the time he was done with those blokes. Also love the caveat next to Hewitt's 4 wins with no mention of when Nadal's last few wins against Hewitt came! Also surprised not to see Davydenko there, whatever suits I suppose.

Anyway, that Nadal is better than Hewitt, Roddick, Safin is not in doubt. Peak for peak would he have won 11/16 non clay slams in 4 years? Not a chance in hell. I give him 4 at absolute best.

yes but at BO3, Nadal never lost to the likes of Nalbandian, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick at slams.

Look I don't hate Nadal(have to add the disclaimer or risk facing the wrath of certain other posters) but this is simply not true. He lost to an injured Darcis, Kygrios and Rosol - players far inferior to the ones you have mentioned at the time of making this post. He has also lost to Ferrer*2 at HC slams and baby Murray at USO 08. If you want to split hairs that far, he was losing to 2 time slam winner Djokovic in 2011...as at that point you'd be hard pressed arguing Djokovic at the start of 2011 or even after the AO was definitely better than Safin or Hewitt or even Roddick.

The thing is players become great by beating other players. For example, what if Nadal had never lost those 3 matches from W2011-AO 2012? He'd definitely not be part of some big four but a footnote like Murray(and as it is he is much closer to Murray in terms of slams than to Fedal). Players are as great as you make them out to be. Nadal's clay competition looks weak when you consider he's won all of 2 matches at RG vs RG champions (one of them being Carlos Moya in 2007). The question is, would it have been better if he had let someone else win more? In essence we're penalizing him for dominance like we are Federer.

This condescending tone towards Safin, Roddick, Hewitt has to stop really. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick are definitely in the same ballpark as current Murray(easily ahead till W2013). Nadal in his peak has lost to worse players than Federer did at his peak..that is not up for debate surely?

Absolute peak Federer lost to Nadal on clay and Safin once in a 4 year period at slams. Take any 4 year period you want that you think is Nadal at his zenith and you'll find Rosol, Soderling, Murray(0 slam winner Murray), Del Potro, Ferrer. Not that there's any shame losing to them but claiming he never lost to players of that ilk when he has lost to worse is definitely wrong.

a joke is you saying "peak Nadal would never let someone of Nalbandian's caliber beat him at slams" while in fact he lost against those mentioned players during his prime

and yes, "fraud 2013" was a shadow of his former self. it was his worst year since 2002 and murphy barely beat him.

and please don't tell me about logic. according to dulltards, healthy dull never lost a match.

yes but at BO3, Nadal never lost to Nalbandian at slams..

Lets see the H2h

Nadal vs Safin 2-0

Nadal vs Nalbandian 5-2

Nadal vs Roddick 7-3

Nadal vs Hewitt 7-4 (3 out 4 wins of hewitt came at 2004/early 2005... rafa aged 17 in the first loss and 18 in the second and third...)

Nadal vs Ferrero 7-2

Baby nadal is 28- 11 vs strong peak generation of federer

18 years old Nadal in AO 2005 brought hewitt to 5 sets

12-04-2014 02:40 PM

17-6-302

Re: Endless Federer-Nadal debates

Apart from the slowing of courts and the balls themselves, Rafa has also been very, very lucky with the time rule. This is a slightly outdated list(Novakal have played 8 matches after that) but have a look at it:

I'd like to see Nadal run around like a rabbit and fetch everything if he wasn't allowed a million minutes between points. It's high time the ATP did something about it. He was easily the biggest offender last year (30 time violations - more than 2*next highest) and the officials were actually being liberal. Shot clock seems to be a good idea. You won't hear Djokodal whinging about time penalties then like this year.

Fedtards always cling to Rosol and Darcis as their saviors. What a joke. It needed worst Fed for Murray to get a win at a slam? Yeah, sure, every time Fraud loses, it's worst of him, typical Fedtard logic.

a joke is you saying "peak Nadal would never let someone of Nalbandian's caliber beat him at slams" while in fact he lost against those mentioned players during his prime

and yes, "fraud 2013" was a shadow of his former self. it was his worst year since 2002 and murphy barely beat him.

and please don't tell me about logic. according to dulltards, healthy dull never lost a match.

it needed the worst fed for murphy to finally get his w at a slam. and even then he needed 5 sets...

Fedtards always cling to Rosol and Darcis as their saviors. What a joke. It needed worst Fed for Murray to get a win at a slam? Yeah, sure, every time Fraud loses, it's worst of him, typical Fedtard logic.